Bally Sports Thread (Latest: Brewers reverse course, will remain with Diamond Sports, not MLB)

[SeaBass]

15 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

I doubt it...might make it even more unlikely. Reality is these streaming services don't want to pay a ton of money for the rights to distribute the games. It was a lot more lucrative to have when you either had to use cable or satellite TV. Now you have like 10 different options to watch TV. It is tough to sell that as a very valuable thing to add to your service and still make enough sense for MLB to not just get people to direct stream with them. 

The only reason to keep pushing it on cable/satellite is for the dinosaurs that watch games. 

I guess we will see, but I won't hold my breath it is magically going to pop up on Youtube TV any time soon. 

I agree, I wouldn't expect the streaming services with Brewers coverage to change from what they already have been.

[nate82]

5 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

I agree, I wouldn't expect the streaming services with Brewers coverage to change from what they already have been.

Just for the Brewers no it won’t change but if MLB bundles all the teams together with no blackout restrictions then I could see something changing.  Otherwise everything stays the same.

The free T-Mobile thing doesn’t apply to Dbacks though that is still blacked out.

[SeaBass]

2 minutes ago, nate82 said:

Just for the Brewers no it won’t change but if MLB bundles all the teams together with no blackout restrictions then I could see something changing.  Otherwise everything stays the same.

The free T-Mobile thing doesn’t apply to Dbacks though that is still blacked out.

MLB certainly could, I just don't put high odds on it. I believe people could watch the Brewers on FUBO and DirecTV Stream (or whatever it might be called now) other than Ballys and the cable/satellite providers. I just wouldn't expect to see YouTube TV, Hulu or Sling jump back in. I'm all for it, just don't think it's likely.

[dlk9s]

29 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

I doubt that will cover in market Brewers games. That will be on a different tier.

I'm out of market, so the only games I didn't get were against the Braves and the ones on Apple.

[dlk9s]

29 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

I doubt that will cover in market Brewers games. That will be on a different tier.

I'm out of market, so the only games I didn't get were against the Braves and the ones on Apple.

[markedman5]

 

[markedman5]

 

[nate82]

1 hour ago, SeaBass said:

MLB certainly could, I just don't put high odds on it. I believe people could watch the Brewers on FUBO and DirecTV Stream (or whatever it might be called now) other than Ballys and the cable/satellite providers. I just wouldn't expect to see YouTube TV, Hulu or Sling jump back in. I'm all for it, just don't think it's likely.

They were already planning a bundle earlier this year.  

[BrewerFan]

On 10/3/2024 at 8:54 AM, Austin Tatious said:

You’d think that the MLB could be more profitable by itself.  No rights fees.  

I assume with Sunday ticket revenue, all the NFL teams split it evenly.   

If the big market teams want to parse themselves out separately, maybe there is still a large consortium of teams who get involved with a Sunday ticket type of deal and split it evenly.  

They do...and it's a ton of money. I believe when they were up for renewal it was 3B a year...I don't know that for certain, but it WAS 2B a year they were generating...so quick math, ~60M a team. 93M if it's at 3B. 

That's why the Green Bay Packers with 100K people can afford to sign the "Juan Soto" type Free Agents if they're willing to come here. 

 

I'd think the Brewers would do better, even if the Dodgers, Mets, Yanks, all those teams aren't involved, the top 12 markets, but if MLB got control of the rest of the teams and divided it up as they SEEM to be inclined to do, how do the Brewers not generate more money?

 

MLB would be SOOO much better if they just split TV revenue. It wouldn't be equal, the Dodgers, Yanks, they'll always generate more money just as the Cowboys and Giants will in the NFL, but if the Brewers could run out a 180M payroll? That'd be cool. 

Also, one player wouldn't get a contract that is equal to SIX YEARS of the Brewers payrolls(even if he was arguably worth it). 

[Paul77]

3 hours ago, patrickgpe said:

I think the most likely scenario is nothing changes too much. As I just posted, I would hope like youtube.tv and sling gets a chance to show the games.

I think there is a possibility that WMLW, CW, UPN would get a chance to show the games, but then again markets outside of Milwaukee would have to figure it out. 

UPN hasn't been a TV network for almost 20 years.... 

[jay87shot]

I read somewhere that it could be something like 200-300% more TV revenue that is 30-60 million a year. Roki Sasuki anyone?

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Nice for fans in major Midwest blackout territory, though I think I'll still be blacked out from games vs. the Cubs, Cardinals, and White Sox (so, like 30 games a year). Worth it for me, though!

As others have said, since we start from the lowest TV contract value (or one of), this hurts less and allows for some opportunities. Let's hope we innovate with this like we do with everything baseball-related!

[Austin Tatious]

Does this mean you need to stream it via MLB or will there be local TV availability in Milwaukee? 

[markedman5]

5 minutes ago, Austin Tatious said:

Does this mean you need to stream it via MLB or will there be local TV availability in Milwaukee? 

Watch the video I posted from Schlesinger…….it's all explained

[Redd Vencher]

3 hours ago, jay87shot said:

I read somewhere that it could be something like 200-300% more TV revenue that is 30-60 million a year. Roki Sasuki anyone?

Sasaki would be subject to the international bonus pool if he's posted this offseason. Increased TV revenue means nothing in his situation.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, markedman5 said:

Watch the video I posted from Schlesinger…….it's all explained

Not everything's in the video. Sounds like you still need a cable or streaming subscription. When asked about over the air broadcasts he says:

"I know some teams in other leagues have a smattering of games over the air," he said. "I'm not ruling anything out. This is the first day of an official announcement. ... We're exploring a lot of different ways to deliver the telecasts."

[jay87shot]

6 hours ago, Redd Vencher said:

Sasaki would be subject to the international bonus pool if he's posted this offseason. Increased TV revenue means nothing in his situation.

Thanks, I forgot he is under the age level. I was thinking he was going to get 10/300 but the int. bonus rules will make it a crazy amount less.

[Soupy]

It sounds like, eventually, the Brewers would get more money. Does it mean the big market teams would get less?

[patrickgpe]

If it ends up being via a brewers cable channel that is going to be quite the undertaking with basically  5 months until spring training games start. OTA will be hard because the brewers would have to sell it to every market in the state and find a home for 150 games in a short time frame. I think the most likely scenario is a brewers.tv app. 

[nate82]

58 minutes ago, patrickgpe said:

If it ends up being via a brewers cable channel that is going to be quite the undertaking with basically  5 months until spring training games start. OTA will be hard because the brewers would have to sell it to every market in the state and find a home for 150 games in a short time frame. I think the most likely scenario is a brewers.tv app. 

The Dbacks had even less time than the Brewers did and MLB made it work.  Basically MLB will be doing the negotiating for the Brewers with the cable companies.  Currently MLB doesn't have any rules for or against OTA.  I think the Brewers would have to negotiate this themselves if MLB will allow it that is.

It will be Brewers.TV but that will just take you to brewers.com.  You can watch the game from there in market or through MLB.TV.  The free T-Mobile doesn't allow you to watch in market games those are still blacked out.  I believe the free T-Mobile is still bound by the old rules and doesn't include any of the in market changes. 

[Underachiever]

I hope they get as much money as they have been getting. I assume that if the pot gets bigger, everyone gets richer, and that is a "rising tide lifts all boats" situation. I don't believe that they will ever get the type of tv money that allows them to fundamentally change the way they do business. I just hope that they don't go backwards.

That said, for the amount of entertainment I get, the hours of game broadcasts I consume, my enjoyment of having this site to chat, MLB is a bargain, in my opinion. I watch on my laptop, my tv, my phone. I listen and watch many out of market games while driving, taking a walk, doing yard work, or working in my home office. Getting involved with watching and reading about the team makes me want to go to more games. It all works together.

$120 for Bally's. $140 for mlb.tv and the audio. Subscribe to this site, which I visit nearly every day. Screaming deal. It seems that some on here want the Brewers to spend money while not wanting to spend their own to watch the product. I don't get it. I loved Mel Allen and his TWIB Notes, and reading the weekly box scores in the Sporting News at the library, but it was a slow drip of info. Compared to the access to games, minor league news, and inside info that is available today, it's a treasure trove. 

I recently went to the pumpkin patch. Being a big shot with a credit card, I decided to pay for my kids and grandkids. Fun day, corn maze, petting zoo, all of that. It was $15 a person (close to $200), and that hurt, but when I found out it didn't include a pumpkin!?!?!?! I lost my mind.

I will start all over in Arizona this March, again, I am sure. When do pitchers and catchers report?

 

 

[bjkrautk]

22 hours ago, SeaBass said:

MLB certainly could, I just don't put high odds on it. I believe people could watch the Brewers on FUBO and DirecTV Stream (or whatever it might be called now) other than Ballys and the cable/satellite providers. I just wouldn't expect to see YouTube TV, Hulu or Sling jump back in. I'm all for it, just don't think it's likely.

Not much to add, but allow me to say there was a big difference watching the Brewers on Direct TV Stream (which is what I have) versus the standalone service (which my parents had, and watched via Roku).  Direct TV was virtually identical to watching on cable: you have a designated channel, which carries other programming when the Brewers / Bucks aren't on, and ran regular commercials during ad breaks.  On the App - at least watching from central Wisconsin - 90% of the ads that ran were house ads for other Bally's programming (I can practically do the British Basketball League ad from memory), or Public Service Announcements.

 

My biggest concern about the Brewers operating as a standalone is the ability to sell ads; it's a major component of the revenue model, especially given the innings breaks and pitching changes which are baked into MLB games.  This may well prove easier for an MLB team which already has in-stadium advertising (and a sales staff who can package the in-stadium ads with streaming service ads) than it proved to be for Bally's.  It's why Bally's initially wanted to hold on to the team broadcasts where they had standalone streaming; the streamer got to keep the ad revenue...but I don't think they ended up with nearly the amount of streaming ad revenue as they had expected, which is why they dropped the Brewers alongside the other teams.

 

There is a real chance the Brewers will generate more revenue from streaming and ad sales than they would have received under the Bally's deal...but it's still likely to pale in comparison to large market teams, given the advertising "reach" of the other home markets.

[Austin Tatious]

I’m not an economist but wouldn’t you make a lot more money as an entity if you cut out the middle man (Bally’s)?  Sure, you will have overhead but all the profit goes to you.  

[MrTPlush]

18 hours ago, Austin Tatious said:

I’m not an economist but wouldn’t you make a lot more money as an entity if you cut out the middle man (Bally’s)?  Sure, you will have overhead but all the profit goes to you.  

This is how I look at it:

1) 'Hopefully this means the Brewers come back to Youtube TV etc.'  If the streaming services made sense and made money, wouldn't Bally have been doing it?

2) 'Cutting out the middleman should mean more money shouldn't it?' Well, maybe. Assuming MLB can be just as cost efficient doing it and it doesn't hurt revenue (like advertising) having the Brewers as a standalone on their own channel. However, I wouldn't expect this to be some dramatic increase in revenue. Because if the middleman was actually blocking us from so many profits, they wouldn't be bankrupt and they wouldn't be trying to drop us. 

[nate82]

1 hour ago, MrTPlush said:

1) 'Hopefully this means the Brewers come back to Youtube TV etc.'  If the streaming services made sense and made money, wouldn't Bally have been doing it?

It depends how much does it really cost to air on YouTube?  I believe Bally just wanted more than what YouTube was willing to give them so Bally just didn't do it.  YouTube and the other streaming services called their bluff on increasing the price to have their channel.  YouTube didn't budge on this and Bally walked away.  I don't believe this had anything to do with it making money for Bally.  This is more along the line of this tactic works and they won't budge from this position. 

I think this is mute though as MLB probably won't negotiate with YouTube and others until they get the 14 teams TV and digital rights.  I think they are at 6 right now so they need 8 more teams to do what they want to do which is to bundle 14 teams together for digital streaming rights and then pay each team an equal share of that money.